Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:48:01 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>,
> 	Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>,
> 	"J.T. Conklin" <jtc@acorntoolworks.com>,
> 	Fred Fish <fnf@ninemoons.com>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>,
> 	Peter Schauer <Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>,
> 	Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>,
> 	Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>

(Why CC everyone, if we all read the list?)

> Most changes (especially additions) to the list of recognized maintainers
> are handled by consensus among the global maintainers.  Final authority
> resides with the GDB Steering Committee.

Does this mean any addition to the list of recognized maintainers must
be brought before the committee for the final approval?

> Responsible Maintainers
> 
> These are active developers who have agreed to review patches to particular
> areas of GDB, in which they have particular knowledge and experience.  The
> areas are expected to be broad; multiple maintainers responsible for an area
> may wish to informally subdivide the area further to improve review.
> 
>   *LIST*

The current list of responsibilities need to be carefully redone, for
this to be effective (you say something similar in the comments, see
below).

> Separating responsibility for patch review from authority for patch review
> is a new concept for GDB; I believe the suggestion was Ian's.

This separation is not at all clear from the text.  I needed to go
back and reread it after reading this comment, but even upon second
reading I'm still not sure what the text really says.  Whose
responsibility is it to review patches and who has the authority for
patch review, according to your proposal?

So I think the text should be made more explicit on this; perhaps
simply mention and explain this separation instead of leaving it for
the reader to deduce.

> I have always been in favor of the concept that global maintainers should be
> able to approve patches anywhere, without having to wait for area
> maintainers.  If we don't trust each other enough for that, then we need to
> work on the trust and/or the list of maintainers.

The problem is, trust is built by following rules which are initially
intentionally restrictive.  As the trust grows, the restrictions can
be gradually lifted.

By contrast, you suggest to begin with unconditional trust.  We
already tried that in the past, and we saw what happened.  Why try
that again? why assume that what happened once, cannot happen again?

> I would like for every defined "area" of approval to be fairly well defined,
> possibly a specific list of files.

Yes.

> This does not replace the entire explanatory text of the MAINTAINERS file of
> course.  Bits like the Obvious Fix rule or the bits about Joel's role as RM
> would remain.  I've just covered the section highlights.

It would be better to post diffs against the current MAINTAINERS.
Then no one will need to guess what parts are being replaced and which
aren't.

Thanks for working on this, anyway.